"The Middle Dutch Brut is a telling example of the international, multilingual
dynamics of the Anglo-Dutch relations of the printing culture of the later Middle Ages.
For those interested in these aspects, The Middle Dutch Brut is a welcome addition and edition."
The one quibble the reviewer has is with the series' practice of having endnotes rather than footnotes -- not a choice I had any influence over.
The one quibble I have with the review, as well as with one previous review, is that in spite of my careful distinction between the author and the publisher/printer, once again Veldener, the publisher/printer, is mentioned as author of the chronicle, which I show he probably was not. I am not sure how I could have made this any clearer than I did, but apparently this message did not come across the way I intended.
The problem here may have been that I did not want to assert as a certainty what I established on the basis of conjecture.
Namely, principally on the basis that at the time of printing, at some remove from the time of composition, the chronicle's deliberate politics did not make sense anymore, and that moreover they seem at odds with the broader work in which the chronicle was embedded by the printer/publisher, and that on the basis of those observations it is likely that the printer/publisher did not understand the chronicle's politics.
Oh, wait, I have one more quibble. This is a general one regarding attitudes from within English/American academia to #AngloDutch work. My edition and translation of the Middle Dutch Brut is in English. It is determinedly aimed at a readership of Anglophone academics. It has, I am pleased to say, now received reviews in two great Anglophone journals: Arthuriana and Speculum. BUT.
Both reviews were commissioned from Dutch academics. I do not have an issue with either reviewer: they are each knowledgable specialists.
What I do have an issue with is that whenever review editors in English and American historical disciplines see work that touches on locations/traditions which they do not consider "English", their first thought goes to reviewers whom they do not consider "English" either.
This is exactly the myopia I have been trying to challenge with my research, and yet it is still being replicated in response to my research.
@slevelt@medievodons@histodons As someone who served a term as a review editor for Speculum (some years ago and in a different area), I think you may be overthinking this. It's usually hard enough to identify a competent specialist who is willing to review. Often it takes several tries. One rarely has the luxury of caring what nationality people are. If your edition was well and competently reviewed, I'd take that as a W.
@aristofontes@medievodons@histodons you seem to be suggesting I don't know my field. What you say is parallel to the justifications people give for all male, all white panels, etc. As I said in my post, I do take the W, but there are disciplinary issues here at play that replicate siloes which are harmful to the field.
Add comment